Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History

I am addressing all the readers of this thread concerning 911files' last post before I respond to his lengthy rant direct.

The background of my experience with this individual who is clearly posturing himself as a researcher who has done the due diligence to counter the
north side approach evidence is entirely relevant to his claims.

He mysteriously first emerged as a blogger on the 9/11 scene a couple days after The PentaCon was first released in Feb 2007.

He positioned himself as a retired detective and "statistical process control engineer" and confidently wrote many convoluted pseudo-technical
articles some attacking us, some seeming to support us, all of which he has removed from the internet by deleting his blog on 2 separate occasions.
911files.com is now completely defunct.

He initially used the newly released citgo security video to simultaneously cast doubt on north side witness Robert Turcios but also suggest that
artifacts or a "flash" in the video is "physical evidence" of a north side approach of some plane.

Although we have hard evidence that the video was manipulated to remove the critical views of the
Pentagon and the plane, 911files ignored this evidence and furiously argued for the legitimacy of this dubious video.

But what's even more contradictory is that he did all this WHILE admitting that a precedent for manipulation of evidence had been established since
he agreed the NTSB data had been "doctored" and the Pentagon security video was "not even reality".

He said this in the one and only phone call I had with him:

"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is
such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]

"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain
angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality. "

Furthermore he told us many times that he accepts the north side evidence as valid! In fact he worked so hard to infiltrate CIT and P4T and get us to
work with him that he made some very strong statements initially against the official
FDR data and the southern approach and then in blatant SUPPORT of the north side evidence via email:

I never denied the possibility of a plane to the north of the Citgo. Quite the contrary, I have always maintained that after my critical review
of their accounts, there were things that only made sense if they did see something to the north (such as Lagasse’s yaw change).

In regard to Lagasse seeing the plane on the north side:

Oh he had to. He had to. If he saw the plane, which I believe he did, he had to see it on the north side because from where he was at
there was no way he could see it on the southern path.

In regard to the citgo witnesses..

I obviously believe them enough (that) I drove 900 miles one way just to take a picture related to one piece of external evidence that supports
their statements and then turn around and drive back here with very little sleep in between.

The ultimate validation from an alleged "Statistical Process Control Engineer":

In short, the "flash" observed in the Citgo video beginning at 09:40:37 is consistent with sunlight reflecting off of a plane described by the
eyewitness accounts documented by the PentaCon video. In short, this is the first physical objective evidence that corroborates their
accounts.

In fact only recently 911files used the citgo witnesses and deliberately misrepresented the ANC witnesses for an "Afterword" that he authored for
Mark Gaffney's recently released book regarding the mysterious white E4B seen over
DC.

Any logical person or "retired detective" who accepts this evidence as valid and so strongly believes that a precedent has been established for
evidence manipulation and altering of government controlled data wouldn't have a reason on earth to resent or attack CIT for merely reporting this
information.

Right?

Well 911files has relentlessly attacked us while trying to play both sides of the fence until on Dec 8, 2008 he publicly
quit the truth movement, deleted his entire 911files blog (for the 2nd time) and
became a regular personality over at the infamous pseudo-skeptic forum where he bashes CIT on a daily basis while furiously working to cast doubt on
the evidence we present all in the comfort of a clique of CIT detractors where constant ad hominems and even childish picture altering for ridicule is
welcomed.

This back story is necessary to discuss since this guy is trying to position himself as someone who is an expert on this information while confidently
asserting that the north side evidence is "fantasy" even though he has fully accepted it for his own agenda in the past.

The fact is he has provided ZERO first-hand south side accounts to refute the north side evidence so he doesn't have a reason on earth to reject it
now and he never had a legitimate reason to ferociously attack us personally.

It will take days to go through the CMH interviews. I should also note that regardless of what Craig likes to assert, he knows that I have
spoken personally with many of these eyewitnesses and to the CMH staff who originally interviewed them.

And how would I know such a thing?

I do not know this nor do I believe it because you have provided no evidence of this and you have been shown to be dishonest in the past as
demonstrated in this article.

In fact you are blatantly lying right now about what I know. Please don't do that.

But he has me in a bit of a box because I respect the redactions and only identify those who are already in the public domain (such as Boger or
Gallop).

If you had really talked to them as you just claimed and lied about me "knowing", then you could have asked them to go on record.

If you didn't you have nothing which you don't.

I am not aware of ANY witness interviews that you have conducted and provided other than that horrible recording of Ramon Navarrio or however spell it
(your blog on him has of course been deleted by you as have all your articles) who was way too far away to refute the north side approach.

CIT has already verified with the ANC witnesses that the CMH has made NO effort to doctor or alter the interviews and they represent the observations
of the witnesses themselves.

How does verifying one witness account verify any others?

It doesn't.

Not in the least.

The logic is ridiculous and blatantly fallacious.

Furthermore the ANC witnesses all place the plane on the north side just like the citgo witnesses proving it didn't hit. You embraced it when their
accounts were ambiguous and anonymous but rejected it once they were confirmed direct! How is that in the least bit logical behavior? It's not it
is dubious contradictory behavior.

For all we know the more ambiguous CMH transcripts DID have some specific details altered out.

But you felt perfectly comfortable using the unconfirmed government provided ambiguous anonymous versions of their accounts as valid evidence for a
north side approach in order to float the notion of a proven false 2 plane disinfo conspiracy theory involving the E4B in a north side flyover
in Gaffney's book. Ironically this was YOUR proven false concocted theory that
required you to accept the north side evidence as valid and of course would prove the radar data altered which is the reason Gaffney said he put it in
his book in the first place as you well knew.

Among all of these, there is not one hint of a "flyover". Craig started this thread to promote a hearsay account,

This is not a hearsay account and it is way more than a HINT of a flyover! It is a blatant reference.

This account can fairly be considered hard direct evidence that a flyover is what people in the critical area to witness the event
immediately reported before the propaganda set in.

For you to publicly accept the north side evidence as valid many times over and over yet try to downplay or dismiss the significance of this is
mind-boggling.

but while he was at the ANC, NOT ONE of the witnesses even suggested such a thing. Quite frankly, most were very clear that they either saw the plane
hit the Pentagon or they themselves were hitting the ground.

Wrong.

NONE of them said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon because NONE of them were able to see the alleged impact point due to the trees!

Why are you lying about their accounts?

This is why you refuse to quote them or cite their names. You are lying about what they said and you are misrepresenting their true POV's that we
have uncovered on video tape.

The fact that you accepted them as valid north side witnesses when they were anonymous and ambiguous government reports but reject them now that they
are confirmed defies all logic and reason.

Now we have two (one already on the public record) who had a view of the sky over the Courtyard. Guess what? They saw NO plane pass over the
Courtyard at the time of impact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Lisa Burgess says she was thrown against the wall! You do not know her true POV and more importantly you don't know if the plane would have flown
over the courtyard at all anyway! There isn't a reason on earth to suggest they SHOULD have seen the plane and they certainly do not refute the
north side evidence that you have agreed many times in the past is valid.

North side approach proves a flyover no matter how bad you try to spin the facts with government data.

Also at AAL77.COM, I have posted the dispatch audio for Arlington County Police, and no mention of a plane flying past the Pentagon. On my last trip
to Arlington, I listened to the ACFD audios as well along with other EMS recordings. Guess what? No mention of a fly-over.

Yeah and you also have stated that the security video and NTSB data have been altered establishing a precedent for evidence manipulation.

It is not honest to accept government controlled data as proof against the independent scientifically validated north side evidence proving they
lied.

I talked to the dispatchers who worked that day. Again, no hint of a fly-over was noted by anyone.

Where's the evidence?

You have already proven that we can not trust your word.

We provide evidence for everything we say.

You don't.

You merely act as a conduit for fraudulent government provided data.

I also have posted hand-written accounts by the controllers at Dulles International, who watched the plane in real-time as it approached and then
disappeared at the Pentagon (no fly-by guys).

Provided by the government who you have agreed "doctored" evidence, withheld evidence, and that you have caught "lying through their teeth".

So why do you all of the sudden have so much faith in them now?

There is no reason to suggest they would release the handwritten notes that DID talk about a flyover/flyby.

That would be silly and illogical.

So sorry but absence of evidence is not evidence.

I have the audio recordings for the controllers at Dulles and Reagan. Again, there is no hint of a plane flying over and no emergency transmission
from other planes indicating having to evade such a plane.

Once again provided by the government who you have agreed "doctored" evidence, withheld evidence, and that you have caught "lying through their
teeth".

So why do you all of the sudden have so much faith in them now particularly since all the ANC witnesses confirmed the north side approach?

Then of course there is the radar data from 4 ASR's in the area, DCA, IAD, ADW and BWI. Again, no fly-over seen. Yet in the face in all of this
rock-hard evidence that the plane went down at the Pentagon, we get this thread about something that someone said someone else said.

Once again provided by the government who you have agreed "doctored" evidence, withheld evidence, and that you have caught "lying through their
teeth".

So why do you all of the sudden have so much faith in them now particularly since all the ANC witnesses confirmed the north side approach?

CIT has accused me of posting rumor because the Paik brothers insist that the antenna on top of the VSP tower was bent. At least I am investigating
first-hand accounts (what they claim they saw) and not "I heard someone say" rumors.

This account is NOT a rumor. Particularly in light of the north side evidence.

This account can fairly be considered hard direct evidence that a flyover is what people in the critical area to witness the event
immediately reported before the propaganda set in.

But NOBODY saw the plane hit the antenna and nobody even reported hearing somebody say they saw the plane hit the antenna so your analogy fails.

After two years of listening to the CIT nonsense, not one eyewitness to a fly-over. I am actually shocked that there has not been at least one, even
if there was no fly-over.

Roosevelt Roberts saw the flyover.

The north side approach proves a flyover.

This new account is hard direct evidence that a flyover is what people in the critical area to witness the event immediately
reported before the propaganda set in.

You have agreed the government has "doctored" evidence, withheld evidence, and that you have caught them "lying through their teeth".

So why do you all of the sudden have so much faith in them now particularly since all the ANC witnesses confirmed the north side approach?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Is it likely that the second hand witness in the above post was able to read American Airlines 757 on the tail of an aircraft moving at 460+ mph
barely above the ground? Sounds like another witness to a slow moving air craft, perhaps we should get a recorded interview with the witness that
could read the plane type on the tail of the air craft and ask him which side of the gas station it was on when it zipped passed at almost 500mph?

Not only that, but the "hearsay" witness posted by CameronFox was in Wedge One at the pentagon. How could he see the AA on the tail when the
aircraft was allegedly heading straight towards him at 530 mph?

Not only that, but the "hearsay" witness posted by CameronFox was in Wedge One at the pentagon. How could he see the AA on the tail when the
aircraft was allegedly heading straight towards him at 530 mph?

Here is a copy of page 8. Can you please point out where the person being interviewed states that "joe" was in wedge one at the time of impact? All
that he says is that he is a computer guru that works in wedge one.

Thank you for posting that page Cameronfox. Can you please point out where it says he "worked in" wedge one? All that is referenced is that he was
"at" wedge one. Not "worked in". Also notice the conjuction "and".

Originally posted by RockHound757
Thank you for posting that page Cameronfox. Can you please point out where it says he "worked in" wedge one? All that is referenced is that he was
"at" wedge one. Not "worked in". Also notice the conjuction "and".

Nice try at spin though...

You are kidding....right?

Shall I edit my post?

All that he says is that he is a computer guru that works in wedge one.

The interviewee actually stated this:

...was one of our computer gurus from wedge one

I would have to say it is safe to assume that he was a worker from wedge one? Wouldn't you? Since he claims to have seen the side and tail of flight
77, I would also have to assume that he is:

a- lying

or

b- was not sitting at his desk at the time of impact and witnessed the attack.

If you want to play the semantics game sir, I suggest you find someone else.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
This to me is at the very least evidence of media coverup. Where is this guys statements in the papers? How about to people he mentions that saw the
plane keep flying, where are their media interviews? Why is that the media was okay with printing statements from people who weren't even there as
though they saw everything happen, but someone who was there and saw something different were dismissed? It's pretty clear that any statements about
a flyover were left out of the papers so that flyover witnesses could not be tracked down.
If only CIT could find out who this guy is, maybe he could give clues that would lead to the discovery of flyover witnesses.

This is junk.
So you are saying that if someone actually saw a flyover they wouldnt be heard by the media?
You are kidding right?
A REPORTER WOULD WIN THE PULITZER for uncovering the crime of the century!
My SIL is a reporter for AP.
She wrote a book about US Soldiers executing some civilians during a certain war.
GUESS WHAT!
SHE WON A PULITZER!
GUESS WHAT?!
NOW she pretty much writes her own ticket with AP!
She reports what she wants when she wants.
Lets say that there were flyover witnesses.....
Do you think that maybe they would be telling enough peopel that eventually it would get reported?
I would imagine there would be 100's of people who would have seen it.
So are you going to make the EXTRAORDINARY claim that ALL REPORTERS would as you put it, "coverup" the crime of the century?

Wrong again. The "interviewee" in the page you posted says "at wedge one". (keyword bolded and underlined since CameronFox seemed to
miss it the first few times). It does not say, "from", nor "worked in", nor "on top of", to the side of, in front of... it says "at". As in
Ehh Tee, "AT"

I would have to say it is safe to assume that he was a worker from wedge one?

You can assume all you want, even arbitrarily mix/replace words of a sentence at your whim based on your bias, but the fact remains the
"interviewee" says "Joe" was "at" wedge one.

WOW the desperation by Captain Bob and Craig is showing.
From Captin Bob and his "flash bang theory" to his latest super duper noise suppressing engines that wouldnt have been heard at the
Pentagon...DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! www.nasa.gov...
WOW this would make a BEST SELLING novel!

So "Cameron", you trust an alleged anonymous man's alleged hearsay about what his alleged friend allegedly saw as proof of an impact versus the
independently verified and heavily corroborated accounts of the Citgo and ANC witnesses??? Over Roosevelt Roberts?

Cameron, is it possible that this account is entirely fabricated in light of the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or no,
Cameron?

Cameron, is it possible that there is no Joe? Yes or no, Cameron?

Cameron, is it possible that if "Joe" is real "Joe" may have actually seen just a jet and deduced an impact or seeing it enter the building based
on the fact that he saw it for a brief moment and then saw the fire ball rise in the distance and his mind he saw it hit the building?

Cameron, did you interview this man or his friend "Joe"? Did you learn of EXACTLY what he saw versus what he deduced? Did you learn his true
location? Did you gain an idea of his EXACT PoV? Did you Cameron?

All that he says is that he is a computer guru that works in wedge one.

The interviewee actually stated this:

...was one of our computer gurus from wedge one

...was one of our computer gurus at wedge one

posted by CameronFox
I would have to say it is safe to assume that he was a worker from wedge one? Wouldn't you? Since he claims to have seen the side and tail of flight
77, I would also have to assume that he is:

Gee CameronFox, at the very least edit your post; and while you are at it stop your lying. You should assume that he is a second hand witness without
a name who is impossible to trace in order to verify his account.

Your desperation is showing through again CameronFox. Why do you think all these CMH interview names are redacted? Maybe because the 9-11 perps
desperately do not want anybody to track them down and ask them real questions? Or maybe because most of them are just fictional characters with
prepared scripts?

You did know that when the CMH Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses were released by FOIA lawsuit, all their names were redacted so they
could not be found and reinterviewed, didn't you? But CIT found them anyway and reinterviewed them and proved the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY
a huge pile of stinking BS.

In case, you have not notices CIT have already proven a number of facts that proves the government has lied to us.

Absolutely not, and I and others have repeatedly shown why

This is a *lie*!

No matter how you want reality to be otherwise,

You do not know, what my reality is, and it is none of your business!
You still stoop as low as you can, in answering these question.

proof remains on CIT shoulders to support its claims and be able to address the flaws, contradictions, and outright contrary-to-fact
claims of CIT's "theory." And CIT has to refute all of the massive evidence against it.

We have, and again, I will tell you, we have “proved” the government has lied to the American people about 911 and that my friend is a fact!
Prove I am wrong? (oh that’s right you cant.)

You have fail to disprove that these witness are lairs ( Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History »)

You have fail to answer question that has been ask of you. You have failed to site your sources. The only thing you have not fail at, was your
ridiculing, and RANTINGS!

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread, than bashing, and insulting people who have done their research, and don’t believe in the
government lies.
It is clear now you are not in here to talk about TRUTH! You have done your best to run everyone off by your insulting and ridiculing them. I hope
the MODS pick up what you are doing!

posted by 911Files
he knows that I have spoken personally with many of these eyewitnesses and to the CMH staff who originally interviewed them.

That is a blatant outright lie and you know it and everybody knows it. Those witness names in the CMH interviews were redacted and the Army
interviewers would never give out their names to you, because that would be illegal under the UCMJ.

Why do you always lie so outrageously that you always get trapped in your lies? It is doubtful that you ever talked to the CMH interviewers also.

Originally posted by CameronFox
...was one of our computer gurus from wedge one

You're really taking a bath on this one, Cameron.

I was wondering why there was a spelling mistake in an earlier quote. When I read the pdf I realised that it was locked, so the quotes needed to be
typed manually. You typed a spelling mistake in an earlier quote, which is no big deal.

However, when you typed 'from' instead of 'at' and argued that others were wrong, it kind of looks a little silly.

This interview is meaningless. Unless this person is real, can be traced and re-interviewed, it's nothing but a script. Whether he was 'at' or
'from' wedge one doesn't matter, as for now, he doesn't exist.

posted by CameronFox
Well, ask your CIT buddies... she is very well known. Craig knows who she is.

posted by SPreston
Nobody can contact her and verify her account nor extract more details can we? She could easily be an actress reading a script couldn't she? But
assuming she is a valid witness, let us check her account.

Yes we do CameronFox. Lisa Burgess is a non-witness. She admitted she saw nothing. She was watching the people in front of her, watching the people in
back of her, watching the people on the lawn, and bouncing off the wall. She most likely saw the flash of the fireball from the side, was blinded for
a number of seconds, and later saw the explosion plume in the sky. There is no reason to believe she was watching the sky before the bright flash
fireball, nor could she have seen much of the sky from inside the wide corridor.

Those are not very big windows in that 2nd story A-Ring Corridor even with those trees are they CameronFox? They are surely not floor to ceiling
picture windows nor are they window walls, are they CameronFox?

Originally posted by CameronFox
The words AT .... or FROM ?
I am taking a "bath" because I missed a word?

You were arguing where the alleged witness was allegedly standing in the Pentagon, based on him being 'from' wedge one. Your argument was that he
could have been standing anywhere, that he was merely 'from' wedge one.

You've only got to read a few posts previous to this one to see how you thought that you were correct. Now, when shown to be wrong, you don't admit
it and try to state that others are clutching at straws instead.

Craig... Try to keep up. I see you called in your three followers of your fantasy to come to your aid. Nice try!

Craig, I was giving an example of hearsay. PERIOD. Read the discussion I was having with PpL. I said the mans statement was hearsay and I also stated
that it is possible that he could have been lying.

Do you know how to read, Craig?

Cameron, is it possible that this account is entirely fabricated in light of the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo? Yes or
no, Cameron?

Craig, time to unbuckle your seat belt. Your fantasy ride is over. You know Craig, that there are many witnesses to the impact and you know more and
more information is coming to light. This is why Craig, you are spending so much time in here. You need to try oh so hard to keep your fantasy alive.
No what I mean, Craig?

Oh, Craig, by the way; Cameron is not my name. The last thing I would do is give out ANY personal information in here so that it can be posted on
PFT's website along with other "detractors."

You've only got to read a few posts previous to this one to see how you thought that you were correct. Now, when shown to be wrong, you don't admit
it and try to state that others are clutching at straws instead.

The ORIGINAL point was that it was hearsay and that I was not looking to dissect the statement that was made. It was an EXAMPLE

PPL and others decided to discuss it.

Now, what I am correct on, is that the interviewee did not state the location of "Joe" at the time Joe said he saw the impact.

I freely admit that I was incorrect with the AT & FROM.

As I said previously... the man (Joe) was either lying or he was in a position to see the impact. Because it is obvious that if he was sitting in his
office and happened to have a window that faced outside, he would not have been able to see the airplane. Simply put, unless Joe was interviewed, we
can not be 100% sure either way regarding his statements.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.